BISHWANATH SHUKLA Vs. JHARKHAND STATE HOUSING BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has approached this Court for quashing the Office Order No.01/Estb.-233/03/1945 dtd. 30/11/2017 (Annexure-14) issued by Managing Director, Jharkhand State Housing Board, Ranchi, whereby and whereunder punishment of compulsory retirement has been inflicted against the petitioner.

(2.) The fact of the case in short as has been delineated in the writ petition is that the Petitioner was employed as an Assistant Electrician in the Jharkhand State Housing Board, Jamshedpur. While in service, the wife of the petitioner had applied for allotment of residential plot through lottery in the year 1997 and after being declared successful, a plot was allotted in favour of the wife of the petitioner. As petitioner was not having any residential house, the Executive Engineer, Jharkhand State Housing Board, Jamshedpur vide Memo No.3658 dtd. 6/12/1996 allotted House No.22/2-1 in favour of the petitioner on temporary basis on rent. On 8/6/2001 he made an application for making permanent allotment of the said house in his favour and for entering into Hire Purchase Agreement and consequently recommendation in this regard was made in favour of the petitioner. After considering the entire facts, the Superintending Engineer vide Memo No.60 dtd. 14/6/2001 directed the Executive Engineer to execute an agreement in favour of the petitioner. It is stated that in spite of such direction the Executive Engineer was not making allotment of Flat, the petitioner moved this Hon'ble Court in W.P.(C) No.1875 of 2008 seeking a direction upon the Jharkhand State Housing Board to execute a Hire Purchase Agreement in favour of petitioner with respect to Flat No.22/2-1 situated at Bagbera Housing Colony. The Hon'ble Court vide an order dtd. 27/1/2016 dismissed the aforesaid writ application. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred a Letters Patent Appeal being L.P.A. No.224 of 2016. However, after some argument the petitioner sought permission to withdraw the said appeal and the appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn by order dtd. 14/6/2016. In the meantime after dismissal of the writ application, the Sub- Divisional Officer, Dhalbhum, Jamshedpur vide letter No.2008 dtd. 19/5/2016 directed the Executive Engineer for getting the aforesaid flat vacated by exercising his power under Sec. 83 and 59 of the Bihar State Housing Board Act, 1982, but later on the Executive Engineer vide letter No.791 dtd. 20/5/2016 ordered for removing the seal and hand over the possession of flat back to the petitioner as they had not obtained permission from competent court in the matter. However, in view of the dismissal of the Letters Patent Appeal, the petitioner voluntarily vacated the premises on 14/6/2016 itself and handed over the vacant possession of the quarter to the respondents-authorities and informed the said fact to the concerned Executive Engineer, Jamshedpur vide letter dtd. 15/6/2016. However in spite of the fact that the petitioner voluntarily vacated the flat, the respondent-Managing Director, Jharkhand State Housing Board put the petitioner under suspension vide Memo No.779 dtd. 28/7/2016. Thereafter petitioner was served a memo of charge vide letter No.612 dtd. 13/6/2016. The show cause submitted by the petitioner was not accepted and the Housing Board proceeded to conduct an enquiry. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report holding the charges to be proved. After receipt of the enquiry report, the petitioner was issued a second show cause notice by the Managing Director, Jharkhand State Housing Board vide Memo No.1788 dtd. 2/11/2017 and after that the respondent-Managing Director, Jharkhand State Housing Board vide Office Order No.01/Estb.-233/03/1945 dtd. 30/11/2017 had imposed punishment of compulsory retirement of the petitioner. Hence this writ is filed.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that in view of the fact that the petitioner after having lost the case before this Hon'ble Court and after withdrawing Letters Patent Appeal immediately vacated the premises, and as such in this scenario issuance of charge-sheet is wholly illegal and malicious. Learned counsel further submits that the charge-sheet has been issued only to penalize the petitioner for approaching this Hon'ble Court for redressal of his grievances and without considering the reply of petitioner, in a most cryptic manner the order dtd. 30/11/2017 have been passed and as such the order impugned deserved to be quashed for the ends of justice.